That's pretty sad, if we turned in as poor of a performance as we did and lost by 7 to the best team the old man has ever played on.

Just goes along with my theory that this is a doppleganger and all that's left of our HOF quarterback is a pile of digested goo lying on a forest floor somewhere.

Poor performance? Hate to burst your bubble but I think the Packers played as well as they can possibly play vs the Vikings. Held AP to 55 yards. Returned a gift fumble for a TD. Rodgers had almost 400 yards. Prepare yourself, the Packers will get blowed out(as Emmit Smith would say) the next time.

Dropped a short TD pass. Surrendered two fumbles (which are largely considered unpredictable i.e. "luck"). Played without our starting LT and LG all of the game, and our backup LT about half of the game. Playing with our worst pickup of the year at SS, who was continuously out of position in his 2nd game on the field for us. Penalties galore.

Yeah, we performed very poorly. I'm surprised you are actually arguing with me on this. You think we played well? Back it up. All you're doing now is talking shit (gonna get blowed out).

I guess if you ignore my facts, i should ignore yours.

Held Peterson to 55 yards. NOT gonna happen again.

Fluke fumble return for a touchdown by Clay Matthews. NOT gonna happen again

Rodgers throws for 400 yards, though much of it in garbage time. NOT gonna happen again.

Yea, the Packers o-line was crap last week. Guess what, it was crap the first 3 games too and it will be crap the next time the two teams play. Guess what, guys who can block Jared Allen dont fall off of trees. You have to draft first rounders or spend big money in free agency. You cant just pick up a veteran or two for the minimum and draft some 3rd, 4th & 6th rounders and expect them to have the talent to keep up with Jared Allen. Maybe next year.

I think Rodgers and the Packer offense played out of their minds last week and it should be a 15+ margin next time.

You say "dropped short TD pass" but it was definitely a bad pass by Rodgers. Bad pass doesnt mean you got unlucky. It was a bad pass.

you say "surrendered 2 fumbles" but what about the fact that the Vikings were about to bust the game wide open till Peterson hands the ball off to Matthews and he scores a TD right there?

If all it takes if for one strong safety to be out to destroy the Packers defense, we have bigger problems than I can imagine. If the coaches dont realize this and adjust, wtf are they there for? Harris is a one on one, bump and run corner. Why is he playing zone with an inexperienced ss out there against a guy who has made zone defense his bitch over and over and over again(Favre)

"Pelaties" as Emmit Smith would say are a part of the game. I saw no key "pelaties" that effected the outcome. I know you will bring it up so i'll just say that Woodsons pick got called back because he interfered with the receiver.

I'm not "ignoring" your facts. We're having an argument. It's something people do when they disagree. Don't be touchy about it.

St. Louis held Peterson to 69 yards the following week and SF held him to 85 yards the week prior. If a defense chooses to shut him down, it is possible. That's three weeks in a row. It's not exactly a fluke. I know he's made out to be Superman, and he IS good, but he's not a one man wrecking crew week in and week out. Not to mention he has performed better at home vs. us than in GB vs. us the past two years.

So they win the fumble battle 2 to 1. It's still a point in favor of the breaks going the Vikings way, in my opinion.

There is no need for garbage time yards if Lee catches that TD pass. It hit him in the bread basket/upper thighs. If he goes for a hand catch instead of a arm catch, he doesn't drop it. If your receiver can stand there and catch the ball without moving, it's not a bad throw.

And we haven't even talked about the home field advantage in the dome compared to playing in Green Bay, and how the crowd noise helped their defense jump the snap, limited our ability to make audibles at the line, affected our rhythm, etc..

It seems to me that you have zero respect for our offense, if you think that they played out of their minds vs. Minnesota. I'm simply not seeing it. Nobody in the organization is seeing it. Everyone feels they performed poorly.

Meanwhile, I feel pretty safe saying that Favre won't perform nearly as well November 1 vs. Green Bay. He is capable of these games that he had last Monday once in a while, but he hasn't been consistent for years, the crowd will be against him, it will be colder, and our D will have twice as much experience in the new scheme.

Fluke fumble return for a touchdown by Clay Matthews. NOT gonna happen again

Rodgers throws for 400 yards, though much of it in garbage time. NOT gonna happen again.

So you can predict the future now with all this NOT gonna happen crap?

Matthews TD return was not a fluke as you call it. Its called "I am a football player and when I see the ball I go after it." He did, he took the ball out of Peterson's weak hands.

The lowly Detroit Lions and St. Louis Rams held Peterson under 100 yards rushing. Worst game of the season so far is against YOUR GREEN BAY PACKERS.

I agree. Why on earth couldn't Rodgers throw for (nearly) 400 yards? The Lions can't generate a lot of pressure, so he should be able to get the pass of way easier. I mean, he went (far) over 300 a couple of times last year. Two of those games where against the Falcons and Titans. He can do it easily when he has to and gets the chance.

And like Akamp said, this was not a fluke play. It's something that the Packers practice on a lot. Keeping the ball carrier up and stripping the ball from him.

Slightly questionable and oppurtinistic tactic thing to practice on a lot, especially with the lack of pressure, but it's a really handy addition and something we really benefited from last week.

Give me a team that tackles solidly on every play over a team who has to resort to stripping the ball to get the ball back. Solidify on the important stuff first before fooling around with the glitzy gimmicks.

Chip Scoggins: Favre said after the game that this might be the best team he's ever played on. Obviously it's still early, but you can see he has developed a nice rhythm with all his receivers. The throw down the sideline to Rice was a good example. He placed that perfectly on his back hip/shoulder.

This might be somewhat standard with Favre, but it just really struck me the wrong way. If I recall correctly, he played on some team with Reggie White, Desmond Howard etc. One of the best defenses in recent history combined with one of the best offensen and an amazing special teams unit and he goes out and makes a statement like this.

I don't mean for this to turn into a Brett Favre bash thread (Although seen the history of these threads, it'll be just that soon enough), but this is either very stupid, or he's really messing with this GB fans.

Said for morale purposes. I immediately dismissed it.

MN has a top notch O, but it doesn't have the D the '96 Packers did, nor did it have someone half as good as Desmond Howard.

The O however may turn out to be better. How to rank it? Simple. See at the end of the year who scores more points - the '96 Packers or the '09 Vikings. The '96 Packers scored 28.5 points per game. The '09 Vikings are scoring over 30 points per game. We'll see if they can keep it up. The Ravens game will be a good measure if whether or not this team is for real.

My point is that this is damn right near disrespectfull. Our 1996 SB team had a better O-line, a better overall defense and better receivers. He now has a better RB and he crowns them the best team he's ever played with?

Does that mean that Jared Allen is as as good as Reggie White? Pat Williams is as good as Gilbert Brown? Visanthe Shiancoe is as good as Mark Chmura? Doug Evans, Leroy Butler, you get my point. Or does he make this statement based on Peterson alone?

I asume he didn't take in account the coaching staff, because Chilly can't touch Holmgren, Frazier's great, but no Shurmur and Bevell has a lot of work to do to be compared with Lewis.

Actually Rock, the '09 Vikings OL is better than the '96 Pack OL. Best OLs Favre had were with Mike Sherman, not the '90s OLs.

'96 Packers OL was better than the '09 Vikings OL. There's no discussion there at all. However one could argue that the '96 OL was worse when given the fact that Vikings QB was sacked 40 times that season. Vikings QB is on pace to get sacked 35 times this year.

Any OL that can make holes for someone like Edgar Bennet, deserves some props.

When the LB (Matthews) just takes the ball out of the RB's hands, that isn't a fluke. He wanted the ball, he took it. A fluke is like the pass play in week one that led to Denver's win.

Characterizing that play as a fluke just exposes the writer's bias.

All I know is the Vikings victory over the Packers was not a fluke. At almost no point in the game did the Packers threaten to win the game. It was a total domination other than a couple of blown coverages and a well planned strip and td return.

When the LB (Matthews) just takes the ball out of the RB's hands, that isn't a fluke. He wanted the ball, he took it. A fluke is like the pass play in week one that led to Denver's win.

Characterizing that play as a fluke just exposes the writer's bias.

All I know is the Vikings victory over the Packers was not a fluke. At almost no point in the game did the Packers threaten to win the game. It was a total domination other than a couple of blown coverages and a well planned strip and td return.

OMG THAT WAS WHAT TWO WEEKS AGO! GET THE FUCK OVER STATING THE OBVIOUS! WHATS NEXT, YOU GONNA TELL US THAT THE SKY IS BLUE?

You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.